For years Gerardus D. Bouw has edited the "Bulletin of the Tychonian
Society," a creationist publication which has insisted that the earth
is the center of the universe. It is a position which insists that, rather
than recognizing that the earth rotates on its axis before the sun, the
center of our universe while it is in orbit around it, holding that the
universe is within the firmament which rotates at immensely high speed around
the earth. In his paper, "Massive Superstrings and the Firmament",
(1) which he delivered in August, 19951 at the Sixth European Creationist
Congress, Bouw seeks to develop a mathematical defense of his position,
arguing from "mathematical logic." He is Professor of Math and
Computer Science at Baldwin-Wallace College in Berea, Ohio. [Bouw maintains
a web site The Association
for Biblical Astronomy, ed.]

THE POSITION SUMMARIZED

It is obvious from his paper that mathematics is his specialty rather
than astronomy or the Bible. In the paper he presents his "firmament
theory" which has been a major focus for him since 1977. In His "mathematical
logic" he rejects the concept of space which was popular when I studied
physics over 50 years ago and accepts the idea that the aether is an infinitely
dense medium called a plenum. He does so for a reason which seems strange
to me as a theologian. He says that "...in the last century the field
of mathematical logic has shown that motion is possible in a plenum if the
plenum is infinite in extent, eternal, and uncreated." (2).On the basis
of the Word of God, which is my final authority, I cannot accept any one
of these three elements, especially when he seeks to distinguish between
the eternal plenum, which he equates with God, and the created universe.
Indeed, he seems completely to contradict himself and the Word of God in
this regard when he discusses the created universe. He says:

Recall that, according to mathematics, motion within a plenum is impossible
if the plenum is created or finite in extent. At first glance this would
appear to leave us only with the rare aether models such as the ill-fated
luminiferous aether model, but is it possible that a created, finite medium
could behave as a plenum to objects inside it? God would have to create
that plenum so that the material bodies within it could not physically
perceive that it is neither infinite nor eternal. In other words, such
a created plenum could under no circumstances allow its finiteness to be
noticed by the material in the universe. In particular, this means that
material measurements could never be made to infinite precision; that the
absolute properties of matter in space must be indeterminate. As long as
that condition is met, bodies can move through that created plenum without
hindrance...Furthermore, the created plenum, as is the case for the uncreated
plenum, must allow motion only along closed or cyclical paths. In particular,
such allowable paths would include rotational and revolutionary motions
as well as waves; but perfectly straight-line (rectilinear) motion is not
allowed. (3)

THE POSITION QUESTIONED

For one whose advanced mathematics barely enable him to meet the requirements
of the Internal Revenue Service, this sounds like quite a bit of ivory tower
gobbledeygook. It seems to me to be a thesis that is exceedingly difficult
to prove except on paper. I will not attempt to dispute Bouw's math since
that is not my field. But when Bouw turns to extract Scriptural statement
from its linguistic and contextual settings in order to adapt it to fit
the interpretation which he promotes, that is quite a different matter.
He plainly demonstrates his inadequacies in the understanding and the handling
of the clear import of Scripture.

For example, he says:

Now the key to identifying the created plenum is to recognize that there
must be a space for it first. After the creation of the heaven (space)
[parenthesis in original] and the earth, we find that there is mention
of the creation of such a medium in the Holy Bible. God calls it the firmament,
and inside it he set the sun, moon, and stars (Genesis 1:15,17). Since
firmament is the God-chosen name for the created aether, we shall henceforth
use it instead of the word aether. (4)

One should immediately recognize the logical leap in his words,

"After the creation of the heaven (space)..." and the fact
that his interpretation scarcely is in alignment with Psalm 104:2. There
the Psalmist, undoubtedly reading the flow of Genesis One when careful consideration
to the flow of events in the Psalm is given The Psalmist speaks first of
the Eternal Lord's creation of the heavens. As the Psalmist considers the
successive events of the creation week he speaks of this first event as
he views the Eternal Lord "...stretching out the heavens like a curtain..."
It must be recognized that the Psalmist does not utilize the root RQ' (the
letters RESH, QUOPH, AYIN) from which RAQIA', firmament in KJV, to describe
the act of the Creator's stretching out the heavens.

Rather the Psalmist used the continuous action participle NOTEH from
the verb root NTH. This Hebrew verb includes such meanings as "to stretch
out, to extend and to spread out."

The participle and its clause properly could be translated timelessly
as "...continually stretching out the heavens like a curtain."
Such an interpretative translation would be made if the translator had made
the decision that he must support the concept that the universe is continually
expanding. On the other hand, in the light of the following context, the
time of the action more likely should be treated as past be past. Then it
would be translated "...having stretched out the heavens like a curtain."
The use of the simile "like a curtain" scarcely suggests the creation
of empty space. It implies that the heavenly bodies which are dispersed
through the stellar heavens could be likened to the delicate, diaphanous
texture of a fine curtain. Furthermore, it absolutely must be recognized
that the Divine and human authors of Psalm 104 clearly recognized that this
act of stretching out the stellar heavens like a curtain preceded the laying
of the foundation of the earth in perfect accord with the order in Genesis
1:1.

It should be noted that Bouw's correct recognition that the Bible is
the Word of God somehow has allowed him to speak of the word firmament as
it is used by the translators in the King James Version to translate the
Hebrew noun RAQIA' as "...the God-chosen name for the created aether..."
It is obvious that he has not had enough to do with the translation of the
original text even to know that the English King James Version is scarcely
"the God-chosen translation which replaces the original languages."

He assumes that it is proper for the English reader fully to infuse a
translation of the original languages with that which can only be ascribed
to the Scriptures in the original languages. It is only in the original
languages that one can be assured that the reader has before him the "God-chosen"
words. Inspiration as defined in the Word of God relates to the work of
the Holy Spirit, the Divine Author, as the human author was guided in his
word choice by that Divine Author so that what he wrote was without error.
It is regrettable but true that no translation can lay claim that the Word
of God gives one the right to claim this "God-chosen" inspiration.

When Bouw speaks of the English translation of firmament, which is the
key word at the base of his entire assumption concerning our universe, he
fails to recognize how every translation falls short of being a perfect
translation in so far as translator assumptions, misunderstandings and theological
biases cause the translator to fail accurately to reproduce that intended
by the Revelator, the Holy Spirit. As a result of the human factor which
is altogether to fallible, the translator or translation team may fail to
provide the reader with "God-chosen" words in the translation.
Indeed, the major problem facing the reader of any translation is one which
most readers do not even recognize. This is the fact that a translation
can not help but contain "man-chosen" words which do not fully
or accurately translate the meaning of a word in a particular context. After
all, the context in which a word is used in any language affects the precise
shade of meaning.

Bouw does not seem to recognize that an interpreter/translator's theological
bias or even his failure fully to understand a text or a word can hinder
his translation's attempt fully to convert the explicit meaning of the original
language to another language. Having worked in the original languages for
more than 45 years, I constantly have been faced with translator errors
and inadequacies (in my own work as well) as I have compared English translations
of the original languages. As a result I am very sensitive to this basic
error in Bouw's approach to Scripture.

THE HEBREW WORD BEHIND THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION FIRMAMENT

The Hebrew word RAQIA' is a word which can be applied to anything which
has been spread out or extended. Fuerst, whose remarkable German lexicon
which in translation somehow has become Davidson's, particularly examines
the etymology of this root. I will quote from a number of his statements
which demonstrate that interpreters (including Fuerst himself) have for
centuries followed the ideas of the ancients in which "The RAQIA' was
conceived to be solid; hence the Septuagint, Aquilla, Symmanchus and Theodotius
used stereooma, the Vulgate used firmamentum ..and Luther used Veste, i.e.'firm
vault.'" The Greeks also used sideereon and chalkeon.
(5) It is obvious that the King James translators have followed that tradition
and simply have transliterated the Latin firmamentum with which undoubtedly
all of them were familiar.

Fuerst says that the organic root of RAQIA' has the "...fundamental
signification to stretch, to extend, to spread out, to beat out..."
He describes it as "Commonly to beat out thin, to expand by beating,
a plate, to extend, to spread out..."

Thus as a verb it is found in Exodus 39:3 being used of the act of beating
gold into thin plates which then was cut into thin wires and worked into
the ephod of the high priest. In Isaiah 40:19 the verb describes the goldsmith
in his work as a maker of idols as "...spreading it over with gold..."
(6) In Numbers 16:38, 39 the root describes "the beating" of the
censers of Korah's men into "broad plates for a covering of the altar"
(Num.17:3,4 in Heb.). Fuerst has demonstrated that there has been a consistent
failure of interpreters of the Scriptures down through the centuries to
distinguish the atmospheric heavens from the stellar heavens. And Bouw follows
in that train of interpreters who have not been careful to examine precisely
how the word firmament is consistently used throughout Genesis One.

THE CONTEXT IN WHICH RAQIA' IS DEFINED.

What do the contexts in which RAQIA' is found in Genesis One contribute
to its meaning as used there? How does that context restrict the meaning
of this noun? Is there a consistency in the way that the word is used in
all of the contexts or does the writer clear indicate that a different sense
of the word suddenly is being used? These are crucial questions which normally
are ignored in favor of thinking of something that is "firm" because
that seems to be the implication of the English translation. Yet the context
which clearly defines the meaning for the word RAQIA' unmistakably uses
the word to describe the space between the universal, preAdamic flood which
covered the entire earth from immediately after its creation until the uplift
of the great single continent in the third solar day of creation.

And God said: 'Let there be a RAQIA' in the midst of the waters, and
let it divide the waters from the waters. So God proceeded to make the RAQIA'
and He caused a division between the waters which were down underneath the
RAQIA' from the waters which were up over the top of the RAQIA'. Thus it
came to be so.

That is to say that the RAQIA' is the space that is stretched out between
the preAdamic universal sea and the canopy which provided the upper limits
of the atmospheric space when God elevated those waters up over the top
of "the stretched out expanse of the atmosphere."

CONSIDERING BOUW'S BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.

There are three major Biblical interpretative errors in Bouw's brief
statement, "Since firmament is the God-chosen name for the created
aether, we shall henceforth use it instead of the word aether." It
exemplifies the way that Bouw attempts to adapt Biblical revelation of what
really happened in the creation to make it fit into the current thinking
about "mathematical philosophy," This approach does not seem to
me to be adequately described by the Bouw's repeated use of the term "mathematical
logic"! Bouw like most creationists, exhibits anything but mathematical
preciseness in his observance of the specific details of the creation when
he turns to Scripture. Like the translators who continue to use firmament
to translate RAQIA' in Genesis One, they carry the misunderstandings of
past creationists as the final statement concerning the proper way to understand
a Biblical context. The creationist must recognize that an actual series
of events in the beginning of the creation is stated in Genesis 1:1. "In
beginning [no article in the original] God created the heavens [dual] and
the earth." Not only must the implication of the dual be recognized
but the fact that there are two direct objects of the verb in this verse.
The verse scarcely can be used as a summary of the entire event series which
follows in chapter One. After all it is obvious from the rest of the chapter
that earth is created nowhere else but in verse one for it exists from that
point on. Indeed, in harmony with Genesis 1:2, Job 38:8-10 and Psalm 104:5-6,
earth was created and then was universally covered with water immediately
after its creation.

Creationists ignore this fact, apparently fearing that, if they recognize
this universal, preAdamic flood, they will somehow be tainted with the gap
theory's use of it in its wholly inadequate attempt to explain Genesis 1.
But this demands that we recognize that the earth only could have been created
in verse one. Neither is it possible to relegate the first of the two direct
objects in this verse to the status of being a summary of events to follow
later in the chapter since the creation out of nothingness (BARA') of both
the heavens and the earth is modified by the same adverbial, prepositional
phrase, "in beginning."

Furthermore, I find it difficult even to imagine a need for god to create
space in which to place the heavens as Bouw describes it in his statement,
"...after the creation of the heaven (space) [parenthesis in original]
and the earth..."

The inclusion of "the heavens" as the first of the compound
direct objects should alert the creationist to the very real possibility
that the term "the heavens" actually is referring to the universe.
And the precise description of the demarcation of the three solar days by
"evening and morning" which is found in Genesis 1:5, 8 and 13
and Genesis 1:14-19 demands the recognition of what really happened in Genesis
1:1. The entire solar system, perhaps not functioning precisely as it does
now, was in place by Genesis 1:2. I say it that way because the first rotational
day of planet earth either began in verse one or in verse 3-5 as God began
to thin the closely shrouding vapors on the surface of the first universal
sea when He began the elevation of the canopy, a process that certainly
was well on its way by Genesis 1:7-8. But the creationist most certainly
must recognize the error of supplying the preposition "in" at
the beginning of Exodus 20:11 by the King James Version. That produces an
impossible statement which requires that earth be in rotation to produce
the beginning of the first solar day even before the universe and the earth
were created! What that text actually says is this: "For six days the
Eternal Lord worked on the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that in
them is..."

I believe that planet earth actually began its rotation in verses 4-5
to produce the first solar day of evening and morning. I may be wrong, however
and rotation began when it was created. The first solar day on earth then
would be observed by the Divine Observer, the Spirit of God, Who was on
the surface. As the shrouding vapors (Job 38:4-10) began to be removed at
the Creator's command and canopy elevation was initiated, the first light
from the sun began to penetrate to the surface and produced before His eyes
the first solar evening and morning under earth's rotation. Indeed, it may
be that the initiation of rotation of the earth is a major factor in the
elevation of the canopy to its place above the atmosphere. In any case,
to return to the point at hand, the speed of earth's revolution on its polar
axis may have been increasing on each of the solar days and finally regulated
as a result of the command in Genesis 1:14. "And God said: Let there
be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night;
and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years."
It is possible that this speaks of the actual regulation of earth's relationship
to the sun and moon so that the solar day became established (we assume)
at 24 hours and the lunar month at approximately 36 days with the solar
year and earth's orbit about the sun regulated to 360 days (according to
the testimony of all ancient calendars). One of the areas of creation carelessness
is the tendency to speak after the manner of a uniformitarian and insist
that each of the days of creation were 24 hours long. At the same time and
hand in hand with that insistence one usually hears that the sun which presently
produces our 24 hour solar day did not even come into existence until the
fourth day of creation.

Wherein then lies the problems with Bouw's thesis that the earth is the
center of the universe and all of our solar system is rotating about it?

1. First of all there is in Bouw's position a misunderstanding of what
happened in Genesis 1:1 and Psalm 104:2-5 here! As I have said, Genesis
1:1 absolutely is not talking about the creation of space in which the heavenly
bodies eventually would be placed on the fourth day of creation. That idea
is based upon one of the most commonly accepted areas of creationist carelessness,
the idea that the sun, moon and stars were created in the fourth day of
the creation week. That incorrect idea is based upon the interpreter's neglect
of the fact that:

a. The termini of the first three solar days of the creation week are
described in precisely the same way as are the next three days.

b. Both Genesis One and Psalm 104:2-5 are explicit in their requirement
that we recognize that, apart from the creation of God's heavenly hosts,
his ministers who observed His creation of the earth (Job 38:4-7), the universe
and the earth are His first physical creations. Psalm 104:2-23 chronologically
sets forth the event series, greatly amplifying our understanding of Genesis
one when we discard the mistaken notion that this is a Psalm describing
the Noahic flood. Psalm 104:2 speaks of the first physical creative act
of God as "...having stretched out [a participle]the heavens like a
curtain."

The participle here could have been translated "stretching out"
as well, but the description of a series of past events the previous past
participle seems to be more appropriate. And this event, as in Genesis 1:1,
precedes the creation of the earth. "Who laid the foundations of the
earth, that it should not be removed forever" (Psa. 104:5). While multitudes
of well meaning Bible students have struggled to find a means by which the
first three days of the creation week are delineated by "evening and
morning" apart from the creation of the sun in Genesis 1:1, both of
these sources of information on the first stage of creation inescapably
suggest that the sun actually existed from Genesis 1:1. How this is possible
in the light of verses 14-19 will be explained later.

2. Here in the statement by Bouw is an Biblical error of staggering dimensions
for he does not recognize the clear definition of the "firmament"
or acknowledge that the word poorly translated by "firmament"
has nothing whatsoever to do with celestial space in our universe or beyond.
The Hebrew word RAQIA' which the King James Version translates by "firmament"
explicitly is defined in Genesis 1:6-8. It is the atmospheric space which
is stretched out between the preAdamic universal sea which existed from
Genesis 1:2 to Genesis 1:9.

"Then God said: 'Let there be a space stretched out in the midst
of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' And God made
the space stretched out and caused a division between the waters which
were down underneath the space stretched out [there are three prepositions
emphatically used here to limit the lower edge of the very limited space
that is stretched out to the surface of the universal sea] from the waters
which were up over the top of the space that was stretched out.[Again there
are three prepositions which emphatically and inescapably limit their upper
limits of the "firmament" to the bottom of the canopy.] And it
came to be so. And God called the space that was stretched out 'heavens.'
And the evening and the morning were the second day" (Gen. 1:6-8).

The space which is described here cannot possibly be referred to as the
created aether of our universe. extending at least as far as the planet
Pluto. It absolutely is limited in meaning to the space stretched out between
the preAdamic universal sea and the water vapor canopy which God elevated
above the sea to form the atmosphere. Bouw, in his statement about Genesis
1:15 and 17 that "...firmament is the God-chosen name for the created
aether..." totally ignores this Biblical definition of the "firmament"
and God's preparation of it as His preparation of the earth's atmosphere.
I anticipate that he will say that God has used "earth" in two
senses. Indeed that is so. Its use in Genesis 1:1and 2 has reference to
the planet Earth. But when God abruptly elevates the great single continent
of Genesis 1:9 out of the sea, He then explicitly reapplies and reuses the
term in a new sense which He announces when it is restricted to that portion
of the planet which was above sea level. "And God called the dry land
Earth and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas..."

Any announcement that there is a reapplication and reuse of the term
"firmament," "the atmosphere") in Genesis 1:15, 17 absolutely
never appears. The term means precisely that as defined in Genesis 1:6-8,
"the atmosphere." That this is true that there has been no re-definition
of the term RAQIA', "the atmosphere," is shown by the fact that
God commands concerning the bird life which He created on the fifth day
(i.e. immediately after His use of the term "the firmament" or
"the atmosphere" in verses 15 and 17), that the birds should '...fly
in the expanse of the firmament of the heavens (i.e. the atmosphere.'"

Indeed, Bouw strongly suggests by his statement that "firmament"
is the God-chosen name for the created aether..." that he as a mathematician
has not investigated the original text of the Old Testament sufficiently
to recognize that all translations of the Bible, none excepted, suffer the
theological bias and the lack of understanding of the original text which
allows their misunderstanding and biases to be passed on to the readers
without warning. That is to say that every version which is dominated by
amillennial theologian translators will suffer damage in prophetic passages
where the passage appears to contradict their misguided eschatological interpretations
inherited from and which dutifully following Augustinian modification. They
fail to recognize that Augustine's eschatological position was developed
to escape the odium which the Roman government saw in the preacher announcing
that the little land of Israel would rise again and one day, under their
Messiah, would rule the world. To preach that which so clearly is taught
in the Bible well could have resulted in a death sentence from Rome. And
those grave clothes of the early developing Roman Catholic church still
are worn in the pulpit preaching of the third of the Bible which is prophetic.

But here in Genesis One the problem is somewhat different. It is the
fact that a great procession of interpreters, who did not understand the
original text or what that text was revealing, have made pronouncements
concerning the events and order of events which specifically are revealed
in the Scriptures concerning earth's early events. One of the major problems
of creationists is that, rather than researching the physical and Biblical
evidence for themselves, they rather blindly accept and continue to use
the errors of their predecessors and give their pronouncements precedence
over the authoritative statement of the Word of God. Bouw has done precisely
that when he has used "firmament," the poor translation of RAQIA',
to apply to the space of our universe. And he apparently is announcing by
his statement, "Since firmament is the God-chosen name for the created
aether..." that he holds that the King James Version alone, of all
of the translations in the world, is an inspired translation.

I can only hope that those who heard Bouw's presentation recognized that
all of his remarkable leaps of logic as he attempted to establish that a
rotational period of 2 days for the universe had the goal of proving to
others that our sun is not the center of our universe but rather the earth.
The entire approach is an attempt to establish a geocentric universe.

His calculations (6) were designed to demonstrate that his failure to
demonstrate that the universe rotated every "solar" day was inconsequential.
After calculating an angular velocity for the universe giving him a rotational
period of two days, he again makes a great logical jump and presumes on
the "firmament" saying:

Since Genesis 1 and other scriptures associate a rotation period of one
day to the firmament, [Oh? To the firmament or to the earth?] can we assume
that this two day period is actually one day? The answer is yes. Although
the numbers work out to twice that, considering the uncertainties of the
above estimates for the mass of the universe and its size, the match of
the rotational period of the universe at a day is phenomenal! (7) It seems
remarkable to me that "mathematical logic" proceeds so efficiently
on the footwork of assumptions and great logical jumps!

3. Thirdly, there is a massive failure in Bouw's approach to Scripture.
He fails to observe what the Scriptures actually are saying and clearly
are meaning but uses it to support his thesis. What Genesis 1:14-9 actually
says, although rarely translated so, is this:

"Then God said: 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the atmosphere
of the heavens to cause a division between the day and the night; and let
them be for signs and for seasons and for days and for years. And let them
be for lights in the expanse of the atmosphere of the heavens to cause to
give light upon the earth:' and it came to be so. For God made two great
lights; the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule
over the night and the stars also. [There is no verb with 'the stars.' The
verb was supplied by the King James translators. I conclude that the Hebrew
word for 'The stars' is governed by the infinitive 'to rule' in the phrase
'to rule the night']. And God appointed them [For this governmental use
of the verb ROOT NATHAN compare its unmistakable use in Genesis 41:41 by
Pharaoh as he made Joseph the second over the kingdom]. in the expanse of
the atmosphere of the heavens to give light upon the earth and to rule over
the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and
God saw that it was good. And the evening and morning were the fourth day.

But what does this mean? How could the sun and moon be in the atmosphere?

"Impossible!" you will say. Yes, that would be impossible.
But that is not what this text says. There is communication here between
members of the Godhead in which One member directs another member, Who is
the primary agent in creation, Christ, concerning the placing of lights
in the atmosphere to govern mankind's activities on earth. Obviously these
lights in the expanse of the atmosphere of the heavens (where the birds
fly in Genesis 1:20) are not the sun and moon even though the passage has
been so interpreted so many thousands of times. The old adage, "Fifty
thousand Frenchmen can't be wrong!" already has been disproven more
than once to say the least. We must remember the physical situation on earth
from the second day until the Noahic flood.

There was a large amount of water, probably in the form of water vapor,
elevated up over the top of the atmosphere during that extended period of
time. The effect of that upon the earth is recognizable throughout the entire
Paleozoic "era," a time of earth's history which records in the
deposits of the Noahic flood left as it began, became universal, stabilized
and began its retreat. The Paleozoic deposits display the evidence that
before this universal flood the climate had been stable worldwide. Individual
fossil families can be found worldwide in these deposits providing clear
indication of a universal climate in the period from Adam to Noah.

What does this mean with reference to Genesis 1:14-19? It means that
the canopy was not merely a band about the equator but that its water vapors
extended entirely around the earth. That means that Adam most likely never
once directly saw the sun or the moon in the stellar heavens because of
this great, globe encircling layer of water vapor which was above the atmosphere.
All that he saw during the daytime to guide him in recognizing the approximate
time of day was a brilliant spot on the bottom of the canopy, a sun dog
"in the firmament, i.e. in the stretched out expanse of the atmosphere
which lay under the canopy. All that he saw as the moon's dimmer, reflected
light shined through the vapors of the canopy was a moon dog. By observing
these atmospheric representations of the heavenly bodies which had been
present from Genesis 1:1, he and all of his descendants through the day
that the Lord shut the door of the ark recognized the times and seasons,
the days and the years. It is fascinating to notice in Josephus testimony
that mankind almost immediately after the Noahic flood began worshiping
the freshly exposed heavenly bodies.

Surely someone will object that I obviously am ignoring the testimony
of Genesis 1:16 concerning his creation of the stars on the fourth day.
The objection grows out of another example of creation carelessness, a type
which occurs when one builds doctrine upon a translation without checking
its accuracy in the original text. Many translations have followed the KJV
error of inserting a verb so that the text says: "And God made two
great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to
rule the night: he made the stars also." The text actually concludes:
"...and the lesser light to rule the night and the stars also."
While the stars rarely if ever could have been visible before the Noahic
flood, the text nonetheless states the truth which is still true that the
moon is the dominant light surpassing all other lights of the night even
today. I say that Bouw fails to understand just what the revelatory text
actually is saying in Genesis 1:14-19 and that his attempt to transfer the
firmament, the stretched out space of the atmosphere between the sea and
the canopy to be the space of the universe simply ignores context. "And
God called the "firmament" of the heavens [i.e. the stretched
out space of the atmospheric heavens] Gen. 1:8). "...and fowl that
may fly above the earth in the open "firmament of the heavens,"
[i.e. the stretched out space of the atmosphere]

CONCLUSION

The fact that the uses of "firmament" or "the stretched
out space of the heavens" in Genesis 1;15 and 17 are bracketed by very
clear explanations that this word refers to the atmospheric heavens removes
the major pillar from beneath the geocentric explanation of our universe.
It categorizes the presentation of a geocentric universe with other wild
ideas which have arisen through improper exegesis. The discarding of the
theory from future creation conferences will remove one of the obstacles
which seeking naturalists find standing in the way of their recognizing
that the Word of God actually is a fully trustworthy testimony of precisely
that which happened in earth's earlier event series.